Mediaboss Marketing

As of late May, in the three months since Russia invaded Ukraine, 6.8 million refugees had fled the war into other countries. The majority, some 3.6 million people, headed to Poland, while another million went to Romania. European Union nations and others began offering visa waivers and other schemes to help Ukrainians. The UK, for example, is currently home to about 60,000 refugees from Ukraine.

Further east of Europe, the people of Afghanistan are experiencing conflict which has lasted for over 40 years. More than 2.6 million Afghan refugees are registered with the UNs refugee agency alone, with an increasing number of people fleeing the country in the wake of the Taliban takeover.

Do people think that refugees from one of these two countries deserve more help than the other? Are peoples views mirroring the racist double standards that characterised much of the coverage of conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East? We set out to find out what the British public believes. Caught between their desire to show solidarity for people affected by war and their evergreen concerns that too many people are coming to the UK, legally or illegally, we wanted to know how recent events have shaped their views.

To do this, we conducted an online survey, as part of ongoing research, with a representative sample of 1,690 adults in Great Britain contacted via YouGov. Among other questions, we asked respondents:

do you agree or disagree that we should let refugees fleeing conflict-affected areas come and stay in the UK?

To get to the core of the matter, however, we actually deployed three slightly different versions of this question, with each respondent only seeing one. In one version, we asked the question as it is, in one further version, we added a reference to Ukraine as the conflict-afflicted area, and in a third version, Afghanistan was used as the example.

For people receiving the neutral version of the question, levels of support for helping refugees were high, with 71% agreeing that the refugees should be allowed to come and stay in the UK. We found similar levels of agreement when we ask about Ukrainian refugees, with 70% of respondents agreeing we should help.

However, in the version where we ask about Afghan refugees, the proportion of respondents agreeing that we should help dropped by a staggering 21% to 50%. The difference is statistically significant and shows a specific, rather than universal, feeling of responsibility among the UK public.

We investigated this interesting gap by comparing the responses we got for a series of political and demographic groups. The gap between support for helping refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan is at its largest for those respondents who voted Conservative at the last general election. Of all Conservative voters, 67% thought we should let refugees come and stay in the UK, compared with 65% when we used the Ukraine frame, and only 36% with the Afghanistan frame.

This is not to say we didnt find a gap with Labour voters, but it was much smaller. In this group, 81% said that the UK should let refugees come and stay, compared to 82% for those who received the Ukraine question, and 76% with the Afghanistan frame.

Overall, there is a 21% gap for the general population, which grows to 31% for Conservative voters, and shrinks to 5% for Labour voters.

The smallest gap is observed among young respondents aged 18 to 24. In this group, 58% thought we should help when asked with the neutral frame, 60% with the Ukraine frame, and 59% with the Afghanistan frame. So, while the gap is almost gone, support levels for helping refugees, in general, were also lower than for older groups in our sample.

For all those optimist proponents of a reawakening public spirit favouring international cooperation and solidarity in the face of conflicts, pandemics or perhaps even climate change, these results are a reminder that there are limits beyond surface shifts in the public mood.

The war in Ukraine has clearly prompted British people to think about their role in helping those who suffer and to build a fairer world. But charities, NGOs, and governments, through their efforts, are apparently still not able to bridge the gap in the publics mind between the specific case of Ukraine and the broader cause of helping all those afflicted by conflicts worldwide.

To better understand what is driving the sense of exceptionalism regarding Ukraine, we might look to the higher levels of media attention that are currently being given to the crisis there. Another factor may be a perceived cultural or social nearness to Ukrainians (or, conversely, a sense of distance from or even racism towards Afghan refugees). Its also possible that British people are more open to helping Ukrainians because their plight leaves them with a stronger sense that something similar could happen to them.

Thinking it could be me will move many to take action, but it wont give us the chance to engender the radical change in our care for all people around the world. Once the emergency is over in Ukraine, the work to make the world a place without suffering will still go on.

View post:
Ukraine: survey shows British people, and especially Tory voters, feel very differently about some refugees than others - The Conversation

This week, the countries of the NATO alliance as well as observer nations such as Australia and Japan met in Madrid for their annual summit.

These meetings are expressions of unity within the alliance. For many years, while they have featured important discussions, the alliance has largely been in search of a purpose.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to provide a renewed sense of unity and purpose. It has saved the alliance from becoming the "brain dead" institution that Emmanuel Macron described it as in 2019.

There were two important outcomes from this year's summit. First, the accession protocols for Finland and Sweden to join NATO were endorsed by the members of the alliance, after overcoming Turkish concerns.

It is highly unlikely these two nations would have joined the alliance without Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. It is yet another of the consequences that Putin surely did not anticipate when planning his lightning war on his southern neighbour.

The second key outcome of the summit, and perhaps the more crucial, was the agreement to a new strategic concept. The NATO Strategic Concept, issued periodically since 1949, describes how NATO and its constituent nations will respond to the challenges, opportunities, and threats to their security and defence.

The development of the new concept was an outcome of the 2021 NATO Summit and is the first update of the NATO Strategic Concept since 2010. This new version is a recognition of the fundamental changes in the global security environment in the past decade.

Recognising that the Euro-Atlantic area is "not at peace", Russian aggression is described as central to the security challenges of contemporary Europe.

Like previous documents, the concept also recognises other transnational threats including terrorism and climate change.

And for the first time, China is included as striving "to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber & maritime domains".

The concept also acknowledges the alignment of Russia and China as a threat that is "counter to our values and interests".

The new strategic concept will have impacts on European nations, as well as the conduct of the war in Ukraine. And, it will even have an influence on Indo-Pacific security and the security of Australia.

For Europe, the agreement on these strategic challenges must drive greater investment in the military, intelligence, and industrial aspects of European defence. Many members of NATO are yet to spend even 2 per cent of GDP on their defence, having relied on the Americans for several generations.

However, the nature and scale of the threats posed by Russia, China and climate change means that every nation will need to increase their spending.

Germany, as Europe's largest economy (and spending only 1.44 per cent of GDP on defence), must lead the way in this regard. If Germany, Italy, Canada, and other small spenders don't step up financially, this new Strategic Concept is dead on arrival.

For Ukraine, there are several potential outcomes of the summit and the new concept. In the short term, it provides the strategic narrative that underpins support to Ukraine. Additionally, the summit declaration also reaffirms NATO's "Open Door Policy".

This holds out hope for new members joining NATO's alliance. Not yet Ukraine, but perhaps even this is possible in the future.

The invigoration of NATO at the summit is also good for Ukraine in the medium to long term. It will hopefully result in increased investment in European industrial capacity, which will underpin Ukraine's transition from a Soviet equipped military to a NATO standard.

By any measure, this is a massive undertaking. Even in peacetime, this transition to NATO equipment and munitions would be a challenge. Doing so while defending against Russia is extraordinarily difficult.

The support from NATO from its military stocks and from enhanced industrial production will be critical for Ukraine.

Finally, what of the impact on Australia of the NATO summit and its new strategic concept? The presence of Australia was recognition of our nation as an important security partner for NATO.

The inclusion of China as a threat in the strategic concept is an acknowledgement of Australia's resistance to Chinese coercion and military aggression.

Importantly, NATO has accepted that threats to European security don't just manifest on its borders. While China might be geographically distant from Europe, it's economic, military, intelligence and propaganda expansion in the past two decades is now viewed as a threat to Europe's democratic systems.

Because of this, we should expect to see greater engagement of NATO countries in our region beyond the US, France, and the UK.

This year's NATO summit, and its new strategic concept, represent a reinvigoration of the alliance. It now possesses renewed purpose for the 21st century.

NATO has a clear focus on deterring and responding to the coercion and military aggression of the techno-authoritarian regimes in Europe and Asia.

Let's hope that action and finances accompany the fine words of last week.

The future of Ukraine, Europe and the democracies of the Indo-Pacific will depend on it.

Mick Ryan is a strategist and recently retired Australian Army major general. He served in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a strategist on the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. His first book, War Transformed, is about 21st century warfare.

Loading

Continue reading here:
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has renewed NATO but the future depends on what comes next - ABC News

Wimbledon and the LTA are to appeal against hefty fines imposed on them by the Womens Tennis Association for their decision to ban Russian and Belarusian players this year in the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine.

Sally Bolton, chief executive of the All England Club, confirmed on Monday that Wimbledon has begun appeal proceedings against its fine, of $750,000, while the LTA, which also banned Russian and Belarusian players from Nottingham, Birmingham and Eastbourne in the build up to the Championships, is understood to be appealing against its $250,000 fine.

We have appealed. It is the subject of a legal process, Bolton told a briefing at Wimbledon on Monday. We [Wimbledon and the LTA] are separate organisations, so we have been fined separately and we are addressing it separately.

In response to Wimbledons decision to enforce the ban on Russian and Belarusians, which meant players such as the mens world No 1, Daniil Medvedev, could not play, the WTA and the mens governing body, the Association of Tennis Professionals decided to remove ranking points from Wimbledon. It is not known if the ATP is also to issue fines of its own against Wimbledon and/or the LTA.

Wimbledon stand by the decision we made, Bolton said. Were deeply disappointed at the reaction of the tours to that decision. We thought really long and hard about that decision. It was an incredibly difficult and challenging decision to make. It was not taken lightly. We thought carefully about the ramifications of taking it. But it was absolutely the right decision.

For us, it was the only viable option in the context of the government guidance in place. We accept that others will take a different view, but we absolutely stand by the decision.

See the original post here:
Wimbledon to appeal against WTA fine for banning players over Ukraine war - The Guardian

Pope Francis looks on during an exclusive interview with Reuters, at the Vatican, July 2, 2022. REUTERS/Remo Casilli

Register

KYIV, July 4 (Reuters) - Ukraine renews its invitation for Pope Francis to visit Ukraine and urges the pontiff to continue praying for the Ukrainian people, a Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesperson said on Monday.

"It is time to deepen connections with those who sincerely desire it. We renew the invitation to Pope Francis to visit our country and urge you to continue praying for the Ukrainian people," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oleg Nikolenko said when asked for comment about an interview Francis gave to Reuters.

The pope said in the interview that he hoped he would be able to go to Moscow and Kyiv after a trip to Canada as part of efforts to end the war in Ukraine. read more

Register

Reporting by Max HunderWriting by Alexander Winning; Editing by Jon Boyle

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read this article:
Ukraine renews its invitation for Pope Francis to visit - Foreign Ministry - Reuters

Ukrainian police officers document the destruction at one of Europe's largest clothing market "Barabashovo" (more than 75 hectares) in Kharkiv on May 16, 2022, which was destroed as aresult of shelling, amid Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sergey Bobok | AFP | Getty Images

WASHINGTON The Ukrainian negotiator leading the now-stalled talks with Russian officials called on U.S. and NATO allies to quickly supply Kyiv with additional weapons, citing a lack of progress in brokering a peace treaty with Moscow.

"Once or two times a week we call each other and they kind of check and ask what's going on, but both sides clearly realize that right now there is no place for negotiation," explained David Arakhamia, the majority leader of Ukraine's parliament and Kyiv's top negotiator.

Arakhamia, who sat down with journalists at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, D.C., to share updates from his discussions with Biden administration officials and lawmakers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said that Ukraine simply needs more weapons and more sanctions levied against Russia.

"They stepped back and regrouped and now they're fighting in a much different way. It's a much smarter way I would say because the logistics are in place now," Arakhamia said.

In the weeks following the Kremlin's late-February invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces on the ground were beset with a slew of logistical problems on the battlefield, including reports of fuel and food shortages.

Arakhamia added that Ukraine's fight against Russia has shifted to a "distance fight" and will therefore require a consistent supply of long-range artillery, drones, jammers and radars in order to counter Russia's colossal arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles and long-range rockets.

"There is no single region in Ukraine which is considered totally safe because they have missiles with the distance that allows them to shoot any target within the whole Ukraine," Arakhamia added.

On Wednesday,PresidentJoe Biden announced another $1 billion in weapons for Ukraine, including anti-ship systems, artillery rockets and rounds for howitzers. Since the Kremlin's invasion of its ex-Soviet neighbor on Feb. 24, the U.S. has committed $5.6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine.

The latest security package, the 12th such installment, comes as Russian forces ramp up their attacks in Ukraine's Donbas region.

Heavy artillery platforms sit high on Ukrainian military wish lists. To date, the Pentagon has transferred 126 155 mm howitzer artillery systems from U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps stockpiles to Ukrainian forces. Along with the howitzers, the U.S. has also sent approximately 260,000 artillery rounds.

The Pentagon has also recently committed the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HMARS, manufactured by defense giantLockheed Martin. The HMARS are designed to shoot a variety of missiles from a mobile 5-ton truck.

Ukrainian service members fire a shell from a M777 Howitzer near a frontline, as Russia's attack on Ukraine continues, in Donetsk Region, Ukraine June 6, 2022.

Stringer | Reuters

Arakhamia said that Ukrainian forces are rapidly running out of ammunition and artillery shells for the heavy artillery platforms supplied by the United States.

"A delivery of 150,000 shells which is considered a very big shipment is just one month of the war," he said, adding "when the fights are intense, we could use up to half a million shells a month."

Arakhamia said that following large shipments of ammunition and artillery rounds, some NATO allies are not ready to resupply and ship to Ukraine.

"They want to protect their own countries, which is understandable to us," he said, referencing Russian President Vladimir Putin's threats to expand the war in Ukraine further into Europe.

"The world was not ready for a fight of this scale," Arakhamia added.

Here is the original post:
'The world was not ready for a fight of this scale,' Ukraine's top negotiator says - CNBC